Dr. John Lott had a piece at the Washington Post today:
It seems obvious: Restrict gun access, and people will be safer.
Indeed, in all four presidential debates, Hillary Clinton and running mate Tim Kaine have pushed for background checks on private transfers of guns. Clinton says this will “keep guns out of the hands of those who will do harm.” But theory and practice don’t always match. Too often, gun bans or background checks don’t stop criminals and instead disarm law-abiding citizens, particularly poor minorities. This only makes life easier for criminals.
There are already 300 million guns in circulation, and more than 12 million enter the market each year. With 3-D metal printers, more people will be able to make weapons that are indistinguishable from those purchased in stores. It would be almost impossible to remove those weapons from circulation. Getting rid of these weapons would require a door-to-door campaign by law enforcement officials, and even that would be of only limited effectiveness.
It’s also not clear that it would help. When countries like England and Wales, Ireland and Jamaica banned guns and handguns, they saw a subsequent increase in murder rates. Even these island nations, which have relatively easily monitored and defendable borders, have faced fivefold or sixfold increases in murder rates after guns were banned. Some of the biggest spikes in murder rates corresponded with increases in drug gang violence.
Some think that background checks are the answer. Indeed, after each mass public shooting, President Obama calls for background checks on the selling of guns through private transfers. But these new rules wouldn’t have stopped the attackers. Since at least 2000, all of America’s mass shooters obtained guns without going through private transfers. Some of the attacks occurred in states that already have these background check laws.
As I show in my book, “The War on Guns,” there is no evidence that expanded background checks reduce rates of violent crime including mass public shootings, suicide, murder of police officers or domestic violence against women. (Gun-control groups contest this claim, but they compare states with and without background checks, not states before and after background checks are imposed.)
Meanwhile, other law-abiding citizens are left in a lurch. We see that with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Its proponents boast that the system has stopped 2.4 million “prohibited purchases.” But in 96 percent of these cases, the ban was dropped after the first two stages of review.
People who have been mistakenly stopped from buying guns are forced into a costly appeals process. These “initial denials” affect certain racial groups more than others. Hispanics are more likely to share names with other Hispanics, and the same is true of blacks. Because 30 percent of black males are forbidden to buy guns because of their criminal records, law-abiding black males are especially likely to have their names confused with those of prohibited people.
Other gun laws, like gun-free zones, can create targets for mass shooters. Since at least 1950, every one of Europe’s public mass shootings has occurred in a place where citizens are banned from carrying guns.
In America, there have been only four exceptions to that rule.
In late 2013, Ronald Noble, then secretary-general of Interpol, proposed two ways of preventing mass shootings: “One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves (should be) so secure that in order to get into the soft target, you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security. (But) you can’t have armed police forces everywhere.”
He also suggested that it is essentially impossible to stop killers from getting weapons into these “secure” areas. He concluded by asking, “Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past, with an evolving threat of terrorism?”
The answer is an emphatic yes.
The rest of the piece is available here.
The Dallas Morning News, Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, November 30, 2016
The Virginian-Pilot (Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Virginia), November 9, 2016
Savannah Morning News, Friday, November 18, 2016
The Daily Commercial (Leesburg, Virginia), November 18, 2016
Mass Live (Boston/Springfield, Massachusetts), November 9, 2016
Watertown Daily Times (Jefferson, St. Lawrence and Lewis Counties, New York), November 10, 2016
The Derrick, Monday, November 21, 2016
I’m sure Dr. Lott can correct me if I’m wrong. The problem with the proposed “universal background checks (gun registration) is that these gun banners fail to realize that only about 40% of the guns in our country are “registered”. Gun confiscation is nearly impossible without knowing who has the guns and where they are.
Dr. Lott has also made reference to the fact that many crimes are STOPPED by law abiding concealed carry permit holders, often without a shot ever being fired.
These instances are not recorded anywhere, as they are not reported to the police or not collected as part of any statistical analysis.
Criminals prefer easy targets and defenceless victims.
Armed terrorists will always attack a ‘gun free zone’ before taking on any venue that encourages an armed response to attack.
These FACTS need to be brought forward in any gun control debate.
I will not be defenceless. You and your family shouldn’t be either.
Dr. Lott is spot on about DOJ background checks. I was denied the purchase of a pistol because I did not realize that my drivers license had expired and I am a CCWP holder. What does a drivers license have to do with my ability to purchase a firearm? But the most frustrating thing for me; I was now one of the 2.4 Million “prohibited purchases”. DOJ background checks are necessary in a civilized society but like all government programs it is not perfect now and never will be.
And why are we talking about gun confiscation unless you live in California where there is already de facto gun and now ammunition registration. Add to that Californians will now be felons for even owning a high capacity magazine. Californian is going to confiscate, by force if necessary, your privately owned personal property. Once again California has lied to its citizens and reneged on the grandfathering of high capacity magazines. Welcome America to the Socialist Republic of Mexifornia. I thank God every day for Arizona and Dr Lott.